Tag Archive | laws of nature

A Case against Microwave Technology*

A Case against Microwave Technology*

By Catherine Frompovich

Science is the hallmark of everything—supposedly, except when it’s out to lunch in its hypotheses or when it is downright fraudulent, as is the case with vaccinology in order to protect vested Pharma interests.  Even the U.S. CDC and FDA cover Big Pharma’s derriere when it comes to chanting the mantra “vaccines are safe.”  So much science in the peer review realm is out there published stating totally opposite documented scientific facts, but still U.S. federal health agencies function on the ‘flat earth’ concept regarding human health safety!

Such obstinate scientific posture also prevails in the field of microwave technology regarding EMF/RF/ELF and the various rays emitted by microwaves and their intensities.  The only waves recognized by microwave industry giants and vested interests relative to human exposures are thermal (heat) waves, which were identified back in the 1940s and ‘50s when radar science was in its infancy.  We now live in 2017!  Microwave technology has progressed to the point where it wants 5GHz and above capabilities, but still emphasizes 1940s’ safety principles!  What’s not making sense?

What’s not making sense is this:  IF the microwave industry were to admit what’s been scientifically proven since the 1930s, i.e., non-thermal radiation adverse waves affect human biology (bio-electromagnetics), then their emission regulations for every ‘smart’ gadget invention would have to be revised and corrected to the point where they could not implement safety standards because it would be too costly to implement.  Consequently, the industry and its mouthpieces—industrial professional societies, e.g., IEEE, ICNIPR, etc., keep pushing smart gadgets as ‘safe’ they know  consumers get addicted to, but do little to protect consumers from non-thermal radiation waves, since they adamantly refuse to acknowledge them, even when 32% percent of microwave industry studies found non-thermal adverse effects.

That sounds a little bit like what happens in the vaccine industry.  Big Pharma pushes out more vaccines—almost 300 new vaccines in the pipeline now—and persuades government agencies to mandate those vaccines by law while not protecting healthcare consumers from fraudulent science and technology, including totally neurotoxic ingredients in vaccines.

If non-thermal radiation wave adverse effects aren’t real or recognized, why, then, does the World Health Organization (WHO) designate them as “idiopathic environmental intolerance” or “IEI,” a medical diagnostic term, which physicians use?  IEI also encompasses “multiple chemical sensitivities” (MCS), another adverse health problem previously disavowed for many years until it became recognized as “sick building syndrome.”  Today there are “Sick Building Syndrome Contractors and Design Professionals”

An impressive percentage of the global population is affected by IEI or electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).  Here are some statistics:

  • 26% of the USA population (Caress & Steinemann, 2003)
  • 19% of the Swedish population (Johansson et al, 2005)
  • 27% of the Danish population (Berg et al, 2008)
  • 32% of the German population (Hausteiner et al, 2005)

More and more individuals are becoming electrosmog sensitive daily due to all the ‘smart’ appliances and gadgets humans have become addicted to.  The most sinister is Wi-Fi in schools and the work place.  Wi-Fi channels and frequencies begin around 2.4 GHz, which is overcrowded, so now they want access to 5 GHz and higher.  However, there’s something few folks realize: Wi-Fi and microwave ovens operate in the same GHz-wave lengths, so being in a Wi-Fi environment at work or school is comparable to leaving your operating microwave oven door open with exposure for hours on end.  Few people realize that’s a reality when exposed to Wi-Fi.

In 2014 an exceptional clinical study research paper titled “Metabolic and Genetic Screening of Electromagnetic Hypersensitive Subjects as a Feasible Tool for Diagnostics and Intervention” was published in Mediators of Inflammation, Volume 2014 [3] by seven international co-authors.  The following is taken from the Introduction of that paper:

The term electromagnetic hypersensitivity or electro-sensitivity (EHS) referred to a clinical condition characterized by a complex array of symptoms typically occurring following exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) even below recommended reference levels and is followed by remission through the complete isolation. The most frequently claimed trigger factors include video display units, radio, televisions, electrical installations, extremely low-frequency ranges of electromagnetic fields or radio-frequencies—including the so-called dirty electricity due to poor isolation of electric wires and telephonic lines, wireless devices, and wi-fi—fluorescent lamps and low-energy lights, appliances with motors, photocopiers, microwave transmitters, and high tension power lines . EHS is characterized by a broad range of nonspecific multiple-organ symptoms implying both acute and chronic inflammatory processes, involving mainly skin and nervous, respiratory, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and gastrointestinal systems, in most cases self-reported in absence of organic pathological signs except skin manifestations. [CJF emphasis]

[Notation should be made that AMI smart utility meters (electric, natural gas and water) are wireless devices and, therefore, are guilty on several fronts, i.e., including dirty electricity and ZigBee radio GHz waves.]

[….]

Clinical similarities and frequent comorbidity between EHS and the other medically unexplained multisystem conditions of environmental origin, like multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), fibromyalgia (FM), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), sick building syndrome, Persian Gulf War veteran syndrome, and amalgam disease, to which EHS is often associated, have induced many authors to hypothesize that these so-called idiopathic environmental intolerances (IEI), more extensively also defined as sensitivity-related illnesses (SRI), may share common genetic and/or metabolic molecular determinants connected with an impaired capability to detoxify xenobiotics

Children on the Autism Spectrum seem to be impacted more disproportionately than children who have no neurodevelopmental problems.

Interestingly, the Viewpoint in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a timely piece, “The Emerging Market of Smartphone-Integrated Infant Physiologic Monitors” where on their webpage to purchase that published article it states:

In the past 2 years, a new class of infant physiologic monitors marketed to parents for use in the home has emerged. Smartphone applications (apps) integrated with sensors built into socks, onesies, buttons, leg bands, and diaper clips have the capability to display infants’ respirations, pulse rate, and blood oxygen saturation, and to generate alarms for apnea, tachycardia, bradycardia, and desaturation (Table). Despite the lack of publicly available evidence supporting the safety, accuracy, effectiveness, or role of these monitors in the care of well infants, sales of these products are brisk and the market is expanding. For example, the makers of a “smart sock” monitor (Owlet Baby Care) that claims to alert parents if their infant stops breathing recently reported sales of 40 000 units at $250 each.  [5]   [CJF emphasis]

Note sensors have transmitting devices of some type in them to send alarms, which are exposing infants to EMFs/RFs/ELFs depending upon the type of transmitter involved, possibly a ZigBee radio chip, which may transmit at GHz wave length.  It is my opinion, as someone who has researched EMFs, etc., you never want to wear wearable microwave technology, just like you should keep a “live” cell phone off your body.  Take live cell phones out of pants pockets, bras and off belts.  Do your research, please.

And yet, with all the above stated, the microwave industry refuses to make its technology safe!  But read the fine print on cell phone agreements!  Safety guidelines are infinitely outdated and inadequate.  Basically, we’re living in a sea of microwaves and being slow cooked—literally, body organs, especially the human brain.

A more recent development in microwave technology is “flying cell towers.”  AT&T tested that idea and “it could change everything” – I bet!  How about this: Consider the legal culpabilities, plus financial liabilities, for assault and battery offenses filed against operators for perpetrating experiments on humans.

The only way I think the microwave industry wakens up to making safe its business operations and products will happen is when consumers refuse to buy into the addiction of being obsessed and ‘owned’ by electromagnetic technology ‘smart’ gadgets and devices.  Until then, consumers really don’t understand the huge trade off health-wise they find themselves in, as current safety standards are totally inadequate and irresponsible, in my and other researchers’ findings and opinions.

As I stated in the Brief I filed with the PA PUC Administrative Law Court January 25, 2017,

In the BioInitiative 2012 Report,[1] a 1557-page report, which is impossible to include in this Brief, about 1800 new studies regarding low-intensity electromagnetic fields and wireless technology (radiofrequency radiation including microwave radiation) were discussed.  In the Preface to that report, it states:

The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards. Precisely because of this, the BioInitiative Report presents a solid scientific and public health policy assessment that is evidence-based.

Non-thermal waves adverse effects are something no one in the microwave industrial professional societies, ICNIRP in particular, wants to hear, or even acknowledges, exist!  Industrial societies program the U.S. Federal Communications Commission ‘safety’ standards, though.

The FCC does not have the expertise or the capabilities to determine the safety of electromagnetic fields.  FCC stated “Because the Commission does not claim expertise as a de facto health agency, it necessarily considers the views of federal health and safety agencies and institutes that continue to address RF exposure issues in formulating such judgments” in the Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules[3].  Basically, the FCC takes no responsibility for the science.   Frompovich Brief Jan. 25, 2017, Pg. 39

Source*

Related Topics:

Electro-Smog and the Shift of Ages

WiFi — an Invisible Threat to all Life*

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity from Microwave Technology Finally Medically Proven*

What You Should Know About Microwaves*

Children’s Exposure Guidelines to EMF Radiofrequencies Updated by ANSES*

Schoolgirl Found Hanged after Developing Allergic Reaction to School Wi-Fi*

Tests Prove Li-Fi 100 Times Faster and More Secure than Wi-Fi*

Canada Parliament Committee Calls for “Protection of Vulnerable Groups” from Wi-fi*

How Wi-Fi Will Be Used to Erase Civil Liberties*

Parents Sue School over Son’s ‘Wi-Fi Allergy’*

Conscientious Scientists Make an Int’l Appeal on the Wide-scale Problem of Wi-fi*

Wi-fi Affects the Memory*

The Counter-Productive Health Risks of Wi-Fi in Schools*

Son Died from Wi-Fi Induced Brain Cancer Parents Say*

Principal of Australian Girls School Resigns Over Wi-Fi*

Walking into a Wi-Fi Field 2*

Students and Parents Rebel Against RFIDs

 

South Africa May be the Epicentre of a Geomagnetic Pole Reversal*

South Africa May be the Epicentre of a Geomagnetic Pole Reversal*

By Jessica Hall

Don’t start running around like your hair’s on fire, but this might actually matter.

The Earth’s magnetic field is so discombobulated over South Africa that some scientists believe we’re seeing the opening strains of a planet-wide polarity change.

What have scientists observed?

We already knew that the poles of the Earth’s magnetic field sometimes reverse, which is to say their direction flips from herding particles in to shooing them out, or vice versa.

And the Earth’s magnetic field isn’t perfectly even, either. It’s sort of lumpy and thin in places.

This is because the innards of our planet aren’t perfectly evenly distributed. There’s one particular region of the planet, toward the South Pole, where the liquid iron core meets with a hot, dense patch of the mantle.

Studies of the planet’s magnetic field show that its poles are reversed over that patch.

Above it, that ferromagnetic weirdness results in an overlapping region of weirdness in the planet’s magnetic field called the South Atlantic Anomaly. The protective Van Allen belts there get really weird; they fade in intensity, and they dip way down close to the surface.

That region poses an annoying, but well understood problem for space travel and satellites. Hubble doesn’t take observations when it’s orbiting above the Anomaly. There’s a report that in 2012, SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft experienced magnetic interference from the Anomaly and had to reboot systems as a result. The Anomaly may even be responsible for how Hitomi spun itself apart.

Why is all this happening? What’s perturbing the magnetic field?

The core is liquid, it’s moving inside the planet, and it changes the contours of the magnetosphere along with it. Earth’s magnetic field has been weakening sharply over the last 160 years, right over the South Atlantic Anomaly.

Evidence from fired clay from Bantu-speaking civilizations some 5,000 years ago tells us that the planet’s magnetic field was acting just like this, right there over South Africa, back then. Modeling tells us that this magnetic behaviour preceded a planetary-scale flip in geomagnetic alignment that would have resulted in extreme electromagnetic strangeness on the surface. Basically, the Anomaly got big enough that it took over, and flipped the entire planet’s poles inside out.

NASA’s simulation of what Earth’s magnetic fields might look like during a geomagnetic reversal. Yikes.

NASA’s simulation of what Earth’s magnetic fields might look like during a geomagnetic reversal. Yikes.

NASA’s simulation of what Earth’s magnetic fields might look like during a geomagnetic reversal. Yikes.

What does a geomagnetic pole reversal mean for us?

This isn’t going to be one of those end-of-the-world articles. That said, if the poles do flip, we could be in for some electromagnetically interesting times. Magnetic fields deflect electrons, which would change how electricity behaves on a subtle level. The inconsistencies in the planet’s magnetosphere could kneecap satellite observations and act like a poltergeist in computerized systems.

“Such a major change would affect our navigation systems,” according to two geophysicists from the University of Rochester, “as well as the transmission of electricity.

The spectacle of the northern lights might appear at different latitudes. And because more radiation would reach Earth’s surface under very low field strengths during a global reversal, it also might affect rates of cancer.”

Tin foil is electrically conductive, though, so make sure you keep your head well grounded. If you shape the foil right, it’ll act like a Faraday cage around your skull and keep the polarity switch from frying your brain.

Source*

Related Topics:

Earth’s Polarity Has Been Increasing*

The Sun’s Polar Shift has Begun

Sun’s Magnetic Field = Shift in Human Behavior*

Earth Shift: Underwater Landslides Taking Place*

Freaky Weather, Climate Change, Pole Shift, or Signs of a New Era!?

Magnetic North Pole Shift Speeds Up!

A Universal Shift in Reality!

Electro-Smog and the Shift of Ages

Is the Sun and Earth Synchronizing?*

 

Qur’an is Wise to Ancient Satanic Conspiracy*

Qur’an is Wise to Ancient Satanic Conspiracy*

David Livingstone reveals that Kabbalists are singled out in the Qu’ran as instruments of an ancient occult conspiracy.

The Qu’ran dates from the Seventh Century, indicating mankind has suffered from this plot for millennia.

Today the Satanists are pitting Christians against Muslims, using migration and false flag terror, eliminating two birds with one stone.

Most Christians are too credulous to even recognize that their real adversary is the Illuminati, a Masonic (Kabbalist) Jewish cult which controls government, business and culture.

Muslims & Conspiracy Theory

By David Livingstone

Despite the Muslims’ tendency to dismiss the substantial role played by the occult and secret societies as paranoid, it is from the Qur’an that we are provided with the crucial clue which helps us identify the Luciferian origin of the Kabbalah, when it is mentioned:

 

When a messenger was sent to them [the Jews] by God confirming the revelations they had already received, some of them turned their backs as if they had no knowledge of it. They followed what the demons attributed to the reign of Solomon. But Solomon did not blaspheme, it was the satans who blasphemed, teaching men magic and such things as were revealed at Babylon to the angels Harut and Marut. …They learned from them the means to sow discord between man and wife [love magic, feminism]. But they could not harm anyone except by God’ s permission. And they learned what harmed them, not what benefited them. And they knew that the purchasers [of magic] would have no share in the happiness of the hereafter. And vile was the price for which they sold their souls, if they but knew. [2:102]

Essentially, the message of the Qur’an is clear and repeated. Starting with the sixtieth verse of Surat Al-Muddathir, one of the earliest chapters of the Quran to be revealed:

 

Nay! For lo! He [man] has been stubborn to Our revelations. On him I shall impose a fearful doom. (Self-)destroyed is he, how he planned!  Again (self-)destroyed is he, how he planned!  [74:16-20]

 

Or

 

Behold this is the Word that distinguishes (Good from Evil):  It is not a thing for amusement.  As for them, they are but plotting a scheme, And I am planning a scheme. [86:13-16]

And, importantly:

 

And thus have We [God] made in every city the elite to be its guilty ones, that they may plan therein; and they do not plan but against their own souls, and they do not perceive. [6:123]

 

But you have to fight fire with water. We should not combat the conspirators out of vengeance for being wronged. According to the Quran:

 

“The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo! he, between whom and you there was enmity (will become) as though he was a bosom friend.” [41:34]

 

God will judge the conspirators. As for us, we should forgive them in our hearts while opposing their actions. Like Jesus said, “God forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Only love can conquer hate. That is the true message of God’s message as it has been revealed through the centuries.

As the Quran says, on the Day of Judgment, the masses will blame the elite for having been misled by the “conspiracy” carried out against them. But they will be responsible for their own wrongs:

 

Those who were oppressed will say to those who were arrogant, “Rather, [it was your] conspiracy by night and day when you were ordering us to disbelieve in God and attribute to Him equals.” But they will [all] confide regret when they see the punishment; and We will put shackles on the necks of those who disbelieved. Will they be recompensed except for what they used to do? [34:33]

 

And following are numerous examples from the Quran emphasizing the central fact of a conspiracy hatched by God’s enemies, usually using a word translated into English as “plot” or “plan”: Nay! For lo! he hath been stubborn to Our revelations. On him I shall impose a fearful doom. (Self-)destroyed is he, how he planned!  Again (self-)destroyed is he, how he planned!  [74:16-20]

 

And they (disbelievers) plotted [to kill ‘Iesa (Jesus) ], and God planned too. And God is the Best of the planners. (3:54)

 

If good touches you, it distresses them; but if harm strikes you, they rejoice at it. And if you are patient and fear God , their plot will not harm you at all. Indeed, God is encompassing of what they do. [3:120]

 

Those who believe fight in the cause of God , and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of idolatry. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak. [4:76]

 

And they say: (It is) obedience; but when they have gone forth from thee a party of them spend the night in planning other than what thou sayest. God recordeth what they plan by night. So oppose them and put thy trust in God. God is sufficient as Trustee. [4:81]

 

They may hide (their crimes) from men, but they cannot hide (them) from God, for He is with them (by His Knowledge), when they plot by night in words that He does not approve, And God ever encompasses what they do. [4:108]

 

And were it not for God’s grace upon you and His mercy a party of them had certainly designed to bring you to perdition and they do not bring (aught) to perdition but their own souls, and they shall not harm you in any way, and God has revealed to you the Book and the wisdom, and He has taught you what you did not know, and God’s grace on you is very great. [4:113]

 

O you who believe! Remember the Favour of God unto you when some people desired (made a plan) to stretch out their hands against you, but (God) withheld their hands from you. So fear God. And in God let believers put their trust. [5:11]

 

Satan’s plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of God, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain? [5:91]

——

Source*

Related Topics:

This Week the ‘Arch of Baal’ Was Displayed For the Third Time in Honour of ‘The World Government Summit’*

Putin on the Declining Values of the West and Rising Practice of Satanism

School Forced to Allow ‘After-School Satan’ Club or Face Costly Lawsuits*

Sweden in Satanic Death Grip*

Mustering the Emotional and Spiritual Maturity to Face the Satanic Cult*

Dajjal and the New World Order

Spirituality in the New World Order is a One World Religious Authority*

Financing the New World Order*

G20 Meets In China To Fight Anti-Globalism and Usher In New World Order*

Has Pope Francis Removed Every Single Member of the Vatican Pro-life Academy*

U.S. World Population Control Programme Revealed Creates War and Famine*

The Schumann Resonance Rising and Higher Consciousness*

The Schumann Resonance Rising and Higher Consciousness*

The Schumann resonances are oscillating magnetic frequencies that happen in the Earth’s electromagnetic spectrum. They are said to be generated by electromagnetic changes that happen within the earth’s core, that then affect the earth’s surface, and ionosphere, including the sentient beings living upon it. This resonance has been about the same for hundreds, if not thousands of years, but it seems to be changing. Why?

It has been assumed that the Earth, along with all living things on earth, is surrounded and protected with this natural frequency of pulsation of 7.83 HZ, or the Schumann resonance. The ancient Indian Rishis called this sound, OM. Whether by coincidence or not, it also happens to be a very powerful frequency to use with brainwave entrainment allowing human beings to access their full brains, and heightened consciousness.

Though the Schumann resonance can vary dependent upon the geographic location, it has been hovering around 7.8 cycles per second for years. This resonance is thought to be the ‘heartbeat of the earth,’ an oscillating frequency which we ourselves attune to in order to stay in balance energetically.

Gregg Braden claims to have found evidence that HAARP and other weaponized weather is messing with the Schumann resonance, offering that there is evidence in the Seattle library’s archives, and though this has not been verified, many others have suggested that that the Schumann frequency is not only altered to control us, but that we can also alter it, depending on our own level of consciousness.

In 2014, it was considered anomalous for the Schumann resonance frequency to have risen from its usual 7.83 HZ to somewhere in the 15-25 levels.

It looked like this in 2014

It looked like this in 2014

It looked like this in 2014:

This is what it looks like now: http://imgur.com/a/KUnqq Spike in Schumann Resonance in 2017

This is what it looks like now: http://imgur.com/a/KUnqq Spike in Schumann Resonance in 2017

 

There have been peaks to up to 36 HZ in recent days.

You can also track this in real time using the Space Observing System, here.

As the Heart Math institute’s research has revealed by collecting a continuous stream of data from the earth’s magnetic field, there does seem to be a shift occurring in global consciousness, evidenced by changes in the Schumann frequency. You can look at a spectrogram calendar to see the changes for yourself, here.

Moreover, the research suggests that when many people are in peaceful alignment, the resonance changes to reflect that. In other words, we are changing the magnetosphere of the planet with our thoughts and actions. This ‘coherence’ is likely being supported inter-galactically as well.

As NASA details,

“At any given moment about 2,000 thunderstorms roll over Earth, producing some 50 flashes of lightning every second. Each lightning burst creates electromagnetic waves that begin to circle around Earth captured between Earth’s surface and a boundary about 60 miles up. Some of the waves – if they have just the right wavelength – combine, increasing in strength, to create a repeating atmospheric heartbeat known as Schumann resonance. This resonance provides a useful tool to analyze Earth’s weather, its electric environment, and to even help determine what types of atoms and molecules exist in Earth’s atmosphere.

The waves created by lightning do not look like the up and down waves of the ocean, but they still oscillate with regions of greater energy and lesser energy. These waves remain trapped inside an atmospheric ceiling created by the lower edge of the “ionosphere” – a part of the atmosphere filled with charged particles, which begins about 60 miles up into the sky. In this case, the sweet spot for resonance requires the wave to be as long (or twice, three times as long, etc.) as the circumference of Earth. This is an extremely low frequency wave that can be as low as 8 Hertz (Hz) – some one hundred thousand times lower than the lowest frequency radio waves used to send signals to your AM/FM radio. As this wave flows around Earth, it hits itself again at the perfect spot such that the crests and troughs are aligned. Voila, waves acting in resonance with each other to pump up the original signal.

While they’d been predicted in 1952, Schumann resonances were first measured reliably in the early 1960s. Since then, scientists have discovered that variations in the resonances correspond to changes in the seasons, solar activity, activity in Earth’s magnetic environment, in water aerosols in the atmosphere, and other Earth-bound phenomena.”

What NASA does not detail is how human consciousness can interact with these frequencies to change them. The Heart Math Institute calls this global coherence, but it is also known in hundreds of ancient texts as the ‘awakening.’

Additional scientific findings suggest:

  1. The Schumann Resonances are observed by experiment to emerge at several frequencies related to brainwaves. They range between 6 and 50 cycles per second, specifically 7.8 (alpha), 14 (low beta), 20 (mid beta), 26 (high beta), 33 (high beta), 39 (gamma) and 45Hz (gamma), with a daily variation of about +/- 0.5 Hertz.
  2. 83 is the strongest of the seven resonances, in the alpha brainwave range. If the rise in resonance continues, this primary resonance, the earth pulse, changes from sub band low alpha (7-10Hz) to sub band high alpha (10-12Hz), perhaps influencing our ability to deeply relax, balance and integrate our mind/body connection. It could influence REM sleep and dreaming. If it continues to rise, it will breach the threshold into ‘fast’ beta activity. Low beta (12-15Hz) is associated with lack of focused attention, and low beta can even reflect Attention Deficit Disorder.
  3. The amplitude (i.e. intensity) of the Schumann resonance is not constant, and appears to be extremely dependent upon tropical (and hence global) temperature. Indeed preliminary results seem to indicate that a mere one degree increase in temperature seems to be correlated with a doubling of the SR. This could not be more significant, as it is unknown what psychobiological effect these fluctuations could have on humans.

It seems the ‘awakening’ is happening through us, and to us, from within and via ‘external’ influences. Without doubt though the Schumann resonance is changing significantly, what remains to be seen, are the ramifications of these changes.

Source*

Related Topics:

Schumann Resonance Fluctuating Frequency *

Schumann Frequency Resonance of the Earth Has Doubled*

Schumann Resonance of our Being

The Electro-magnetic Warfare on our Consciousness*

Plasma Waves and Obama’s Executive Order Regarding Space Weather Events*

U.S. Air Force to Alter Atmosphere with Plasma Bombs*

Earth Weakening Defences as Veil of Plasma is Discovered

CERN: Connection between Particles and Influenced Human Consciousness*

Cosmic Rays Evolve Consciousness and Transform DNA*

The aql is not Reason – it’s Consciousness*

In the Beginning was/is Consciousness*

Genetics Is Giving Way to a New Science of Life*

Genetics Is Giving Way to a New Science of Life*

By Jonathan Latham

Test your understanding of the living world with this simple question. What kind of biomolecule is found in all living organisms? If your answer is “DNA”, you are incorrect.

The mistake is very forgiveable though. The standard English-language biology education casts DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid) as the master molecule of life, coordinating and controlling most, if not all, living functions. This master molecule concept is popular. It is plausible. It is taught in every university and high school. But it is wrong. DNA is no master controller, nor is it even at the centre of biology. Instead, science overwhelmingly shows that life is self-organised and thus the pieces are in place for biology to undergo the ultimate paradigm shift.

The mythologising of DNA

Highly respected scientists make very strong claims for the powers of DNA. In his autobiography, Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis called it “The King of molecules” and “The big one”. Maybe he read DNA: The Secret of Life, a popular science book that calls DNA the molecule that “holds the key to the very nature of living things”. Its author should know. He is Nobel Laureate, James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. Even institutions have strong opinions when it comes to DNA; the website of the U.S. National Institutes of Health claims “Genes are at the center of everything that makes us human”.

My edition of The Secret of Life features on its back cover Eric Lander. Lander is the celebrated brains behind modern human genetics. He is also the head of the Broad Institute at MIT. In his blurb, Lander endorses “The secret of life” trope. Just below him on the jacket is Professor of genetics Mary-Claire King. She writes: “This is the story of DNA and therefore the story of life, history, sex, money, drugs, and still-to-be-revealed secrets.” According to Prof. King, DNA is life.

The Watson view of genetics dominates education too. The standard U.S. high school biology textbook “Life“, of which we own the 1997 edition, frames the entirety of biology around DNA, thereby giving it the biochemical status of life’s centrepiece.

Meanwhile, Francis Collins, longstanding head of the National Institutes of Health, has published bestselling books about DNA with titles like The Language of Life and the Language of God. It should be no surprise then that the idea of DNA as a master molecule is one of the dominant ideas of our age.

Some biologists will say that these views are extreme and unrepresentative. They are, and part of this article is to explain why extreme views about DNA dominate the public discourse. But its main purpose is to contrast the portrayal of DNA by virtually all biologists with the narrow scientific treatment they apply to other biological molecules. Our existence also depends on proteins, fats, carbohydrates and RNA (Ribonucleic Acid); but no one says “it’s in my protein”. But here is a question: is it any less scientifically preposterous to say something “is in my DNA”?

To take a ruthless look at that question is thus the purpose of this article. Does DNA have any claim to being in control? Or at the centre of biological organisation?

The answer is that DNA is none of the things Watson, Lander, and Collins claim, and that even the standard nuanced biologist’s view of life is wrong. This is provable in many ways but mainly by a new science of life that is emerging from almost complete obscurity. This new science explains the features of living beings in productive new ways that DNA-centric, genetic determinist, biology has not, and cannot. DNA is not the language of God. It is not even the language of biology.

Organisms are systems

The evidence that DNA is not a biological controller begins with the fact that biological organisms are complex systems. Outside of biology, when we consider any complex system, such as the climate, or computers, or the economy, we would not normally ask whether one component has primacy over all the others. We consider it obvious that complex systems are composed of subsystems, each being necessary for the larger whole. Each subsystem has its specific niche but no one subsystem exerts a privileged level of causation.

The same applies to living organisms. At the level of the physiology of an individual organism we do not apply an exclusive or special causative role to the heart, the liver, the skin, or the brain, because a body is a system. All parts are necessary.

At the smaller biological scales of organs too, distinct cell types maintain, operate, and repair themselves and each other. Similarly, at the cellular level, no one disagrees that organelles and other molecular structures are interacting but independent subparts of the whole.

At the level of macromolecules, however, a curious thing happens. Biologists abandon systems thinking entirely. Instead, we apply the famous central dogma of biology, which is that DNA makes RNA makes Protein (Crick, 1970). This formulation creates an origin story that begins with DNA.

The first mistake of the dogma, however, is to call it “central”. If an organism is a system, then there is no centre. The second error is that the pathway described is factually incorrect. The pathway should be a loop since the DNA does not come from nowhere: to make every DNA molecule requires proteins and RNA and DNA. More broadly, the synthesis of DNA cannot be done without a whole cell, just as the making of any RNA or any protein also takes a whole cell.

If we wanted to be more accurate still, we would say it takes a whole organism to make each of these components. Even this description would be incomplete, since, undeniably, it takes an ecosystem, including, in the case of humans, a gut microbiota and a food supply. The full formulation of the central dogma is therefore a loop embedded in a web. But the central dogma taught to millions of students every year takes an entirely different intellectual path. It arbitrarily confers on DNA a special place: firstly, by not closing the loop, and second, by placing DNA at its beginning. The central dogma is thus merely a representation formed from arbitrarily constructed boundaries. It is not biological reality.

Geneticists, and sometimes other biologists, make this linear interpretation seem plausible, not with experiments—since their results contradict it—but by using highly active verbs in their references to DNA. DNA, according to them, “controls”, “governs”, and “regulates” cellular processes, while nouns like “expression” are also commonly used to ascribe functions to DNA. Biologists thus confer activist and willful superpowers on DNA. Ultimately, this can create circular arguments. DNA controls embryonic development or organism health because genes express themselves. QED.

However, there is no specific science that demonstrates that DNA plays the dominant role these words imply. Quite the opposite. For example, a recent publication in Nature magazine posited “An emerging consensus that much of the protein constituent of the cell is buffered against transcriptional variation.” i.e. is insulated from direct genetic quantitative influence (Chick et al., 2016). This buffering is nicely demonstrated by many experiments. One is the demonstration that the circadian rhythm of a bacterium can be reproduced, in the absence of any DNA, by just three proteins mixed together in a test tube. The rhythm was maintained for three days, even in the face of temperature changes (Nakjima et al., 2005).

z-dna_orbit_animated.gifInevitably, any language used to describe DNA will necessarily be metaphorical and be of limited accuracy, but words like “govern” and “control” literally invent attributes for DNA (Noble, 2003). A much more precise metaphor for DNA would compare it to the library of Congress, since cells use DNA primarily as a storehouse of information. Consider that biologists could apply more neutral verbs such as “use”, as in “cells use DNA to create proteins”. If so, they would have created a very different status for DNA. Only librarians would have T-shirts saying “its in my DNA”.

If we shed the wild metaphors and the central dogma, a more accurate way to think about biology emerges. If every molecule and every subsystem, regardless of scale, constrains and potentiates the other parts, then there is no need to infer a central controller. We can replace the DNA-centric model of biology with a relational model of complex interplay of feedback systems and emergent properties, of which the library of DNA is just one component. In this model, RNA is simply one of the inputs needed to make proteins and DNA is just one of the inputs needed to make RNA, and so on. Unlike the central dogma, such a proposition is consistent with the known facts of biology.

The formulation encapsulated by the central dogma and by biology textbooks is therefore an illusion. They are a classic case of what microbiologist Carl Woese has called the “reductionist fundamentalism”. Reductionist fundamentalism differs from simple reductionism in that whereas simple reductionism is a valid scientific method, the former is an ideological preference for a simplistic explanation when a more holistic one is better supported by the evidence. In this case, the assigning of superpowers to DNA to explain observed biological activities when a better explanation would accept that many biochemical events have multiple causes and contributors. Oxford physiologist Denis Noble describes this fallacy as conferring on DNA “a privileged level of causation”.

If not DNA, is there a “molecule of life”?

Many plant-infecting viruses lack DNA. They base their lifecycles on protein and they use RNA as their heritable material.

There are also plant pathogens, called viroids, that lack both DNA and protein. Viroids are thus composed solely of non-coding RNA. Lifeforms can therefore exist without either DNA or proteins—but there are none that that lack RNA.

Therefore, the answer to the opening question: “what kind of biomolecule is possessed by all living organisms?” is RNA. RNA stands for Ribonucleic Acid and for many reasons it is a better candidate for being a universal biomolecule than DNA.

RNA and DNA are chemically very similar. Even scientists confuse them, but their modest chemical distinctions confer very different properties. RNA is structurally very flexible (bendy), whereas DNA is highly inflexible; RNA is unstable and chemically reactive, whereas DNA is highly inert. A key difference is the number of chemical modifications that cells are able make to their four bases. In the case of DNA (whose bases are the nucleotides A,C,G and T), just two modifications are possible in most cells. These modifications are called methylation and acetylation. These two modifications alter the properties of DNA bases and they are the primary basis of the fashionable science of epigenetics.

RNA also has four bases (A, C, G, and U). But cells make more than one hundred comparable chemical modifications to them. The roles of these modifications are essentially a mystery, but presumably they help RNA perform its many cellular tasks.

RNA is also misunderstood. In a typical human cell, less than 1% of it makes proteins. The remaining 99% has a huge variety of structural, regulatory, and enzymatic functions. Most biologists though might as well be slaves to the central dogma in thinking that RNA is just the intermediate between DNA and protein. Only recently has RNA begun emerging from the shadow of DNA as a far more interesting molecule.

The deep explanation of these molecular differences is that RNA existed long before DNA. RNA probably predated even the invention of cells. It is enormously old. In consequence, it is so deeply and structurally embedded in living systems that it is very hard to study. Thus the paradoxical reason why we don’t know much about RNA is not because it is unimportant, but because, unlike DNA, RNA is too important to cell function to selectively remove at will.

Consequently, to conform with current evolutionary understanding, we should really invert standard teaching and insist that the proper way to think about DNA is that it is a specialised form of RNA. DNA evolved structural rigidity and chemical inertness to make itself a more staid librarian for the safe storing of heritable information.

So, over evolutionary time DNA was chosen as a better librarian (this library metaphor originates with Colin Tudge and his excellent book Why DNA isn’t selfish and people are nice); proteins turned out to be superior catalysts of chemical reactions; but RNA is more likely to have been the biomolecule around which life was really built. But RNA is no more a controller than is DNA.

Nor is DNA the centre of evolution

A common explanation for organising biology around DNA, and the one given by the authors of “Life“, the textbook, is DNA’s supposed role in the theory of evolution. For two reasons this explanation is highly questionable, however. Both reasons exemplify pervasive misunderstandings of the theory of evolution. One of these misunderstandings exaggerates the significance of Darwin’s theory and the second, once again, gives to DNA credit it doesn’t deserve.

The first misunderstanding is to assume that evolutionary theory is an explanation of life. Life, however, began long before Darwinian evolution and some of its fundamental patterns (cells, proteins, energy metabolism) emerged—so far as we can tell—long before DNA became the molecule of heredity (Carter, 2016). This distinction is important. In a textbook about “Life“, for example, it is important to separate the origin of life from its maintenance so as not to unhelpfully exaggerate (i.e. confuse) what Darwin’s theory explains; but in conflating the two, “Life” is only reflecting the misunderstanding of most biologists.

Second, the pre-Darwinian life of cells and metabolism arose thanks to the fact that complex systems have emergent and self-organising properties (e.g. Kauffman, 1993; Carter, 2016). The advent of DNA into these systems allowed Darwinian evolution to accelerate, but it did not eradicate emergent and self-organising properties. Rather, it colluded with them and helped create new ones. This means such properties are the likeliest explanation of large areas of biology. “Self-organization proposes what natural selection disposes” is how Batten and colleagues quaintly summarise alternatives to standard evolutionary theory which is pretty much rigidly genetic determinist (Batten et al., 2008).

A classic emergent property is the folding of proteins. DNA encodes the linear sequence of amino acids that constitute proteins, but every protein adopts one (or usually more) highly complex three dimensional shape (Munson et al., 1996). These shapes, along with charge and solubility, are largely responsible for a protein’s properties. It is habitually, but lazily, presumed that DNA specifies all the information necessary for the formation of a protein, but that is not true. All protein shapes depend also on the integration of multiple sources of information. These sources include temperature, other cellular molecules like water and mineral ions, pH, energy molecules like ATP, protein folding aids called chaperones, and so forth. Beyond this, many proteins have functions, such as to be molecular channels and pumps that emerge only at higher levels of structure, such as in the presence of other proteins.

Thus DNA specifies proteins and their functions only up to a very limited point. It is possible to disregard all such non-genetic contributions and ascribe to DNA all the properties of a protein or a process (or a whole organism). Most scientists do, but doing so is an ultra-determinist position. It writes emergent properties, such as protein folding, entirely out of the functioning of life. It again confers onto DNA superpowers it does not have.

Emergent properties are only one example of why the relationship between DNA and evolution is much more tenuous than is normally portrayed. Patrick Bateson of Cambridge University, whose perspective is not emergent properties but animal behaviour, explained evolution much more accurately than most when he wrote: “Whole organisms survive and reproduce differentially and the winners drag their genotypes with them. This is the engine of Darwinian evolution“.

Thus we can explain why Charles Darwin invented his theory of evolution without knowing DNA even existed, because, even for evolution, DNA still is not “The big one”, but it is standard for biologists to teach that DNA is more important to evolution than any other component of living organisms.

Explaining genocentric biology

When Dorothy journeyed to the Emerald City she discovered that The Wizard of Oz was only “a common man”. He was devoid of magic powers and so could not help her friends. But there was at least something behind the facade. The same is true for DNA.

Most cellular molecules are highly reactive and transient chemical substances. That means they are difficult to extract, and hard to study. So it is with RNA and proteins.

DNA, however, is a much more practical point of intervention in biology. It is stable and robust and simple enough to be isolated on a reproducible basis and copied precisely. With an hour of training, high school students can do it. With a bit more training, DNA can be altered and, in some species, replaced. Hence the alarm over garage hacking of DNA.

This explains, in a nutshell, why our understanding of gene regulatory networks runs far ahead of our understanding of other disciplines of biology. It is because DNA is the low hanging fruit of biology.

Scientific dissent around DNA

“The human body completely changes the matter it is made of roughly every 8 weeks, through metabolism, replication and repair. Yet, you’re still you –with all your memories, your personality… If science insists on chasing particles, they will follow them right through an organism and miss the organism entirely.”

Mathematical biologist Robert Rosen is supposed to have said. And indeed, examine any multicellular organism and concealed under its relatively calm surface are circulatory systems, churning stomachs, lymphatic drainage systems, electrical impulses, biomolecular machines and so forth.

These systems cause every part of an organism to continuously move, contract, twist, vibrate, strain and grow. What defines living organisms, in the final analysis, is their dynamic and  animate nature. This is why, when we want to know if an organism has legally died we don’t examine its DNA, we measure its heartbeat or brain function. Animate properties require animate components, like RNA and proteins.

Yet by organizing our understanding of life largely around DNA (recall Mary-Claire King’s “DNA is life”), biologists have curiously chosen the cellular constituent that is probably the least representative of life’s dynamic nature.

For this reason there are dissenters in biology. Some are prominent. Some are not. They all have questioned whether biology is not much more complex and interesting than our present DNA-based framing can make room for (e.g. Kaufman, 1993; Strohman, 1997; Rose, 1999; Woese 2004; Annila and Baverstock 2014; Friston et al., 2015).

These dissenters like to note, for example, the general absence of medico-scientific breakthroughs following the sequencing of the human genome and the ever-more-detailed-analysis-of-tiny-scraps-of-human-DNA (Ioannidis, 2007Dermitzakis and Clark, 2009Manolio et al., 2009).

Some go much further in their critiques than others. Carl Woese, perhaps the best known bacteriologist since Pasteur, argued before his death that genetic determinism is a dead end, its vision of biology is “spent” (Woese, 2004).

There perhaps is no finer example of this than the field of tissue engineering. Tissue engineers claim to have made “incredible” progress making whole human organs in vitro for transplanting and other medical uses, yet these organs are all non-functional (Badylak, 2016). They don’t have blood vessels or immune systems or nerve networks, they are just human cells on an ear-shaped scaffold or a hand-shaped scaffold and so, among their many deficiencies, they are short-lived because they have no regenerative properties.

Many biologists suspect at least part of this paradigm problem, but they rarely act on it. The sole noticeable official response to the obvious fact that organisms are highly complex systems has been to shovel modest funding in the direction of ‘systems biology’.

One is bound to note that even this systems biology is rarely the study of systems. Instead, biologists have overwhelmingly used systems biology funds not to further the understanding of complex systems but to scale up and mechanise their reductionism.

Thus no scientific specialism or institution has articulated the profound inadequacy of viewing organisms as collections of gene regulatory networks or moved towards assembling an alternative paradigm (or paradigms) to replace it (Strohman, 1997).

This intellectual near-vacuum is nevertheless being steadily filled by individual scientists, mostly on the margins, with promising, even revolutionary, theoretical developments and experimental findings that explain biological phenomena in ways that transcend genetics.

A short guide to alternative paradigms of life

A Helmholtz machine is a sensory device that makes a prediction about reality and crosschecks it against that reality. It then estimates the difference between the two. Bayesian statistics is a mathematical method of doing the same: estimating differences between expectation and reality.

A new theory of neurobiology, called the Bayesian brain theory, proposes that the brain is the biological equivalent of these (reviewed in Clark, 2013). Brains make predictions, measure the mismatches with their expectations and pass those mismatches up to higher neural circuits. These higher circuits repeat the process and if mismatches persist then these are passed on to yet ‘higher’ mental levels.

The Bayesian brain hypothesis is quite new and predictive neurons might seem superficially improbable, yet the hypothesis appears to explain numerous aspects of brain structure and brain function; for example, how the brain can treat widely different stimuli (visual, sensual, oral, aural, etc.) essentially with the same neural mechanisms and structures. It also appears to show how the brain can integrate action and perception. The theory also provides a substantive explanation of learning: learning is the updating of the predictive model. The Bayesian brain hypothesis may even explain how brains evolved higher levels of consciousness over evolutionary time periods: by adding new layers of prediction.

A particular strength of the Bayesian brain hypothesis is that it corresponds to the actual spatial organisation of neurons in the primate cortex in which ranks of “predictive” neurons and “sensory” neurons send signals in opposing directions which lets them cancel each other out (except for the mismatches).

The structure-based predictive learning system proposed by the Bayesian brain hypothesis is of interest here because it relegates detailed genetic explanations of many phenomena, including arguably all consciousness, to the margins (Friston, 2010). Genes and proteins may fill in the details but many of the key elements of brain function: learning, action, and perception, derive primarily from structure alone. I.e., like protein folding, they are emergent properties of organisation.

Emergent properties are equally important in other areas of biology. An example is the vascular system of plants. Trees can transport water from unsaturated sources hundreds of feet into the air. Transpiration, as it is called, requires no energy input. Rather, it takes advantage purely physical properties of hydrophilic xylem tissues (tubes) and the properties of water itself. Without transpiration, which already operates, but only very weakly, in soils, plants could not exceed a couple of inches in height, nor tolerate dry conditions (Wheeler and Stroock, 2008). Thus, the defining characteristic of plants (apart from photosynthesis) is their clever exploitation of a simple physical property of water.

A further example is the arches of the human foot. These are longitudinal and transverse diaphragms composed of bone and connective tissue whose emergent property is both to dissipate forces at impact and operate as springs to transfer energy from impact into forward motion. Arches reduce the energy needed to walk or run.

In the discipline of biochemistry, a recent development is the proposed existence of metabolons. Metabolons are three-dimensional spatial arrangements of enzymes. Metabolons explain how the product of an ostensibly minor metabolic pathway can nevertheless constitute 30% of the weight of a seedling and so drive away pests (Laursen et al., 2017).

A more conventional class of self-organising properties found in biology are homeostatic feedback loops. They too are phenomena largely independent of gene functions with key roles in explaining the activities and properties of living organisms. The three proteins noted earlier that can recreate a bacterial circadian rhythm are just one example (Nakajima et al., 2005).

At more elemental and universal levels of life are unifying theories of cells and metabolism, many of which relate life to the operation of fundamental physical forces. The father of all such theories was arguably Nicolas Rashevsky, who died in 1972. He is survived by his students Robert Rosen and AH Louie. Others include physicist Erwin Schrödinger, author of “What is life?“; Stuart Kauffman, author of “The Origins of Order” (1993); Steven Rose “Lifelines: Biology beyond determinism” (1997); Enrico Coen “The Art of Genes” (1999); Denis Noble, “The Music of Life” (2003) and Dance to the Tune of Life: Biological Relativity (2017); and Annila and Baverstock who argue life is the inevitable outcome of the second law of thermodynamics (Annila and Baverstock, 2014; see also Friston et al., 2015). These, and other omitted thinkers, have gone far in assembling the potential raw material for a scientific revolution. One that leaves the framework of gene regulatory networks far behind.

The closest that of any of these theories come to definitively falsifying genetic determinism as a life-concept, however, would be a theory of the origin of life itself that positions metabolism at the centre.

Readers may be familiar with the concept of the RNA world, which is theorised to have predated the supposed “modern DNA world”. But more convincing than an RNA world, for which there is little evidence, is a new theory, the peptide-RNA world.

The central piece of evidence of the peptide-RNA origin thesis (Carter, 2016) is that the enzyme (called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase) that nowadays links RNA to proteins—and which therefore connects the RNA world to the protein world—comes in two basic forms (in all organisms). The evolutionary origin of these two forms (called Class I and Class II enzymes), however, is strangely irreconcilable. Class I and II molecules perform almost identical functions (though with different amino acids) yet have nothing structurally in common. Except for one thing. Their most conserved aminoacids, those at their active catalytic centre, can be derived from opposite strands of the same small RNA molecule (Carter 2016). In other words, the two proteins that let RNA make all modern proteins are derived from opposite strands of a single very primitive small RNA molecule that encoded them both.

The implication of this compelling observation is to intimately link metabolism and replication at a very early stage of life’s origins. RNA was the assembler of primitive proteins and the purpose of those proteins was catalysis, i.e. to guide and enhance metabolism. What the peptide-RNA origin thesis therefore does is to replaces the RNA world—which is a replication-first theory—with a metabolism-first theory in that RNA is enhancing a metabolism that already predated it.

DNA and politics

“Human biology is actually far more complicated than we imagine. Everybody talks about the genes that they received from their mother and father, for this trait or the other. But in reality, those genes have very little impact on life outcomes. Our biology is way too complicated for that and deals with hundreds of thousands of independent factors. Genes are absolutely not our fate. They can give us useful information about the increased risk of a disease, but in most cases they will not determine the actual cause of the disease, or the actual incidence of somebody getting it. Most biology will come from the complex interaction of all the proteins and cells working with environmental factors, not driven directly by the genetic code”. (Anand et al., 2008)

This quotation, spoken (but not written), by Craig Venter, the legendary genome sequencer, suggests that even many geneticists secretly appreciate a clear need for alternative paradigms.

At the same timethe Venter quote prompts a deep question: How is it that, if organisms are the principal objects of biological study, and the standard explanation of their origin and operation is so scientifically weak that it has to award DNA imaginary superpowers of “expression” and “control” to paper over the cracks, have scientists nevertheless clung to it?

Why is it that, rather than celebrating and investing in Rashevsky, Kauffman, Noble, et al., as pioneers of necessary and potentially fruitful and unifying paradigms, have these researchers been ignored by mainstream biology?

What is the big attraction of genetic determinism?

A compelling and non-intuitive explanation for the monomania of biology does exist. It is set out in a second and forthcoming article: The Meaning of Life. It is an explanation that requires going behind the window dressing of science and examining its active and symbiotic relation to power in modern political systems.

Source*

Related Topics:

Russian Scientists Find New Life Form in Antarctica, only 86% Genetically Similar to all Known Living Organisms*

160 Global Groups Call for Moratorium on New Genetic Extinction Technology at U.N. Convention*

Genetic Engineering to Clash with Evolution, Naturally*

The Cosmic Joke behind Human Genetics*

Los Alamos Study Finds Airport Scanners Alter DNA*

Cosmic Rays Evolve Consciousness and Transform DNA*

Human DNA Tied Mostly to Single Exodus from Africa Long Ago*

FBI Errors Lead to Discovery that DNA Evidence is not Reliable*

Collecting your DNA: When Stop-and-Frisk Turns Into Stop-and-Spit*

Born with Two Different Sets of DNA*

DNA Study Finds Ice Age Europeans Predominantly Had Dark Complexions and Brown Eyes*

Why Food is Actually INFORMATION*

Why Food is Actually INFORMATION*

By Sayer Ji

Despite being the condition for the possibility of all life itself, food is rarely appreciated for its true power. Far beyond its conventionally defined role as a source of energy and as building blocks for the body-machine, fascinating new discoveries on the frontiers of science reveal that food is also a powerful source of information.

We are all hardwired to be deeply concerned with food when hungry, an interest which rapidly extinguishes the moment we are satiated. But as an object of everyday interest and scientific inquiry, food often makes for a bland topic. Nonetheless, food is one of the most fascinating and existentially important topics there is, and in many ways, until we understand the true nature of food, and how it is still the largely invisible ground for our very consciousness, we will not be able to understand our own nature, or our own destiny.

How We Got Here

Modern Western concepts of food are a byproduct of a centuries old process of intense secularization. Food is now largely conceived in terms of its economic value as a commodity and its nutritional value as a source of physical sustenance. In the latter regard, its value is quantified through the presence and molecular weight of macro- and micronutrients or its “fat-inducing” calories. In the process of reducing food’s value to these strictly quantitative dimensions, it has lost its soul. Food is no longer believed to possess a vital life force, much less a sacred one. But the etymology of sacred, namely, to make holy, and the etymology of holy, which connects to heal, whole, health, implies correctly that food has the ability to “make us whole.”

Food as Nourishment on All Levels

If talk of food as “sacred” and “whole-making” sounds pseudo-scientific, consider how Nature designed our very first experience of nourishment (if we were fortunate enough to not have been given a bottle full of formula): breastmilk taken from the mother’s breast was simultaneously a nutritional, physical, thermic, emotional, genetic, and spiritual form of nourishment. Food, therefore, can and should never truly be reduced to an object of biochemistry.

And so, as we dig deeper, we discover that the topic of food is a highly cerebral one. And this begins with any simple act of eating, albeit in a slightly different way. It’s called the cephalic phase of nutrition, “in your head,” which reflects how you are actually experiencing the food: is it delicious? Are you feeling pleasure? These “subjective” aspects profoundly affect the physiology of digestion and assimilation. My colleague Marc David has dedicated many years to waking people up to this amazing process. Food, therefore, begins in a context that transcends merely physiochemical conditions and concerns. The nocebo and placebo effects, which are powerful forces in the setting of clinical medicine, also apply to the field and experience of nutrition. And therefore, it is hard to ignore how this important layer of nutrition: the first-hand experience, and even our intention and level of gratitude, has been lost in the fixation on the chemistry and reductionism of food science.

But the inquiring mind wants more specific scientific answers to the question: how does food makes us whole? How does its arrangement of atoms possess such extraordinary power to sustain our species? Why can’t we answer the most rudimentary questions that go back to ancient times, such as the still timeless mystery and miracle of how the bread is transmuted into blood and flesh?

Perhaps, it is the information (and intelligence) within food that will help explain some of this mystery. After all, information literally means “to put form into.” This understanding will add much needed depth and nuance to conventional nutritional concepts where food is still conceived as a bunch of essentially dead and uninteresting atoms and molecules.

The Old Story of Food as a Thing:

Our concept of food is still generally constrained to the Newtonian view that all things are comprised of atoms, externally related to one another, and built up from there into molecules, cells, etc. The story goes that when we eat things, digestion breaks them down into their constituent parts and our bodies then take these parts and build them back up. This very mechanical, simplistic view, while valid in limited ways, no longer holds true in light of the new biology and science. Along with this view of food as matter, is the correlate perspective, that food can be “burned” for energy and that like a furnace or a car food provides “fuel” measured by calories to drive its engines along. Of course, this is reinforced by nutrition facts labels which make it appear that not much is going on beyond caloric content and the presence or absence of a relatively small set of essential nutrients such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals, defined by their molecular weight.

This reductionistic view of food I will call, in recognition of Charles Eisenstein’s thinking, “the old story of food,” and this narrative focuses on two primary dimensions.

Food as Matter:

If we are looking at the “material” aspects of food, we are looking at the physically quantifiable or measurable elements. You could not, for instance, objectively “measure” taste, as it differs qualitatively from person to person (so-called “subjective experience). And so, nutritional science focuses on what is presumably “out there” objectively, namely, quantities like the molecular weight of a given substance, e.g. 50 mg of ascorbic acid, 10 grams of carbohydrate, or 200 mg of magnesium. In reality, these objective quantities are influenced by the type of measuring device we use — and so, there really are no ontologically pure (i.e. “really real”) material aspects out there in and of themselves. But for the purposes of clarity, let us assume these material aspects are real, independent of the measuring device or person measuring. These material aspects, while providing information, are not considered to be “informational” in the sense of giving off distinct messages to the DNA in our body, altering expression. They are considered part of the physical world, and therefore while providing building blocks for our body, including its DNA, they are not understood to alter or control the expression of the DNA in a meaningful way. Food, therefore, is considered “dead,” and not biologically meaningful beyond its brick and mortar functions in building up the body-machine.

The other primary dimension in this old view is…

Food as Energy:

Energy is commonly defined as the power derived from the utilization of physical resources, especially to drive machines. In this view, food provides the fuel to power the body-machine. Food energy is conventionally defined in chemical terms. The basic concept is that animals like humans extract energy from their food and molecular oxygen through cellular respiration. That is, the body joins oxygen from the air with molecules of food (aerobic respiration), or without oxygen, through reorganization the molecules (anaerobic respiration). The system used to quantify the energy content of food is based on the “food calorie,” “large calorie,” or kilocalorie, equal to 4.184 kilojoules. 1 food calorie is the amount of heat required at a pressure of one atmosphere to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius. The traditional way to ascertain the caloric content of a sample of food is using a calorimeter, which literally burns the food sample to a crisp, measuring the amount of heat given off (its caloric content). In order to account for the varying densities of material within a sample, e.g. fiber, fat, water, a more complex algorithm is used today. (alt definition: an amount of food having an energy-producing value of one large calorie)

Again, in this view, food while providing information (caloric content), is not an informational substance in the biological sense (e.g. DNA), but simply a source of energy which can fuel the body-machine.

The New Story — Food as Information:

The new view of food as replete with biologically important information, is based on a number of relatively new discoveries in various fields of scientific research.

For instance, the discovery that food contains methyl groups (a carbon atom attached to three hydrogen atoms (CH3)) capable of methylating (silencing) genes, brought into focus the capability of food to profoundly affect disease risk as well phenotypal expression. If folate, B12, or Betaine — 3 common food components — can literally “shut off” gene expression with high specificity, food becomes a powerful informational vector. One which may actually supervene over the DNA within our body by determining which sequences find expression.

This discovery of nutrition’s prime role in epigenetics opened up an entirely new realm of research, including the disciplines of nutrigenomics, which looks at nutrient-gene interactions, and nutritional genomics, which looks at gene-based risks that provide individualization of nutritional recommendations. Suddenly, almost overnight, food became infinitely more interesting to geneticists, biologists, and medical professionals, in that it as an information vector it could affect, and in some cases control the expression of the DNA, biomedicine’s “holy grail.”

Food’s role as a source of methyl group donors capable of epigenetic modulation of DNA expression is a powerful demonstration of its informational properties, but this is not the whole story…

Food also contains classical genetic information vectors, such as non-coding RNAs, which like methyl donors, have the ability to profoundly alter the expression of our DNA. In fact, there are estimated to be ~100,000 different sites in the human genome capable of producing non-coding RNAs, far eclipsing our 20-25,000 protein-coding genes. These RNAs, together, orchestrate the expression of most of the genes in the body. They are, therefore, supervening forces largely responsible for maintaining our genetic and epigenetic integrity.

These RNAs are carried by virus-sized microvessicles called exosomes found in all the food we eat (they are secreted by all plant, animal, and fungal cells), and survive ingestion to significantly alter our gene expression. In 2012, a groundbreaking study titled, “Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA, found that exosomal miRNA’s from rice altered LDL receptors in the livers of Chinese subjects, effectively proving cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA exists, and is occurring on an ongoing basis through the food we eat. Another study, this time in animals, found that exosomes in commonly consumed foods, e.g. grapefruit, orange, affect importnt physiological pathways in the animal’s bodies. Essentially, these food components ‘talk’ to animal cells by regulating gene expression and conferring significant therapeutic effects. The ability of exosomes to mediate the transfer miRNAs across kingdoms redefines our notion of the human species as genetically hermetically sealed off from others within the animal, plant, and fungi kingdoms. In this sense, food borne exosomes are the mechanism through which all living things in the biosphere are intimately interconnected, perhaps even adding a new explanatory layer to how the Gaia hypothesis could be true.

Another important though overlooked mechanism through which food components may carry and transfer energy and information is through so-called prionic conformational states (protein folding patterns). Prions have been primarily looked upon as pathological in configuration and effect. A classical example is the beta sheet formation of brain proteins in Alzheimer’s. These secondary protein conformations act as a template through which certain deleterious folding states are transferred laterally between proteins. But prions are not always pathological. For instance, naturally forming prions are essential for the health of the myelin sheath in the brain, and likely perform many other important though still largely unknown functions. So, when we look at the phenomena neutrally, the fact that the conformational state (folding state) of a protein can hold and transfer laterally information essential to the structure and function of neighboring proteins without needing nucleic acids indicates just how important the morphology of food may be. It is possible, therefore, that food, depending on how it is grown and prepared, will have vastly different protein folding patterns which will carry radically different types of biologically vital information. This is another example where one cannot exhaustively assess the value of food strictly through quantitative methods, e.g. measuring how much protein there is by weight, but need also to account for qualitative dimensions, e.g. the vast amounts of information contained within secondary, tertially and quaternary conformational states of these protens.

The “Microbiome of Food” is Full of Information.

Acknowledging the role the microbiome plays in the food we eat further deepens our understanding of food as information. In fact, the microbiome could be considered food’s most profound informational contribution. When we consider the genetic contribution of all the bacteria, fungi, and viruses, naturally found in food (especially raw and cultured varieties), this represents a vast store of biologically meaningful information. Some of this microbial information can even “jump” laterally from these micro-organisms into our body’s microbiome, conferring to us significant extra-chromosomal “powers,” essentially extending our genetic capabilities by proxy. For instance, a recent study identified a marine bacteria enzyme in the guts of Japanese, presumably a byproduct of having consumed seaweed naturally colonized by it. This marine bacteria enzyme is capable of digesting sulfated polysaccharides — a type of carbohydrate humans are not equippped to digest because it is marine specific. This indicates that the genes provided by these microbes represent a genetic library of sorts, whose contributions may vastly extend the genetic capabilities of our species. Indeed, the human genome only contains genetic templates for 17 enzymes, whereas the gut bacteria contains genetic information capable of producing hundreds of different enzymes. And these are capable of degrading thousands of different carbohydrates! There are actually many other capabilities provided by these “germs,” including the ability to produce vitamins (including vitamin C!) and other essential biocompounds. The microbiome of our food could therefore be considered an information storehouse. To learn more about how this ancient information (even millions of years old) is preserved in raw foods like honey, read my article: Could Eating Honey Be A Form of Microbial Time Travel?

Water as an Information Carrier in Food:

Another extremely important element is the role of water in food.  Not only has water been found to carry energy and information, but water has also been identified an instrument of biosemiosis. The water component of food, therefore, could contribute biologically important information — even genetic and epigenetically meaningfully information — without needing nucleic acids to do so.

To learn more about how water has “memory,” and can store and transmit genetic information, read about the DNA teleportation experiment performed by Nobel laurette Luic Montagnier.

As discussed above, conventional food science starts on a completely dehydrated basis, focusing almost exclusively on the ‘dry’ measurable material aspects of the food, or the amount of energy it contains (which ironically requires burning off the water to obtain measurements). All readily edible food is hydrated. Were it not, it would be “dehydrated food,” which is generally not considered ready to eat. As such, we can not talk about biomolecules without considering their hydration shells as integrally and inseparably bound to the “dry” components, e.g. amino acids, fatty acids, sugars. Water has the capacity to carry information and to determine the structuration and therefore functions of the biochemicals and biopolymers it surrounds. Water, which is capable of taking in free energy from the environment (Pollack’s infrared heat), has its own information and energy. This means, therefore, that food qua water content, has the potential to carry relatively vast amounts of information beyond what is found in its material composition itself.

As science progresses, both the quantitative and qualitative elements of water will increasingly be revealed to be vitally important in understanding food as information.

Powerful Implications for the Future of Food and Medicine:

When food is looked upon as a vital source of biologically important information which can inform the expression of our genome, it is much easier to understand how our ancestors considered its creation, production, harvesting, cooking, and consumption sacred.

We can also understand how the seeming poetical relationships between foods and organs they nourish may have emerged, via informational bridges described above (RNAs, Prions, water), making possible their “soul connection.”

Today, with a wide range of industrial farming technologies changing the quality (and informational component) of our food, it is no longer sufficient to look at only the material aspects of these changes. Irradiation, genetic modification, pesticides, soil quality, processing and a wide range of other factors (intention), may greatly alter the informational state and quality of a good without being reflected in overt changes in grosser qualities like caloric and materially defined dimensions.

No longer can we look at the difference, say, between infant formula and breast milk strictly through the material/energetic lens of conventional nutritional analysis. On an informational level, they are qualitati`vely light years apart, even if they have so many similarities in crude nutritional metrics, e.g. similar carbohydrate and caloric content.

This will be true for all areas of food production, and nutrition, where formerly an essentially dead ontology governed the way we understand and interacted with the things we eat. Once we understand the true implications of food as information, our entire worldview will change.

Source*

Related Topics:

Diet and the Sacrifice of Child Potential!

The Real Reason behind Blessing Food*

Canada’s New Food Labels won’t Include GMO Info.*

Mini, Bio-Intensive Farms Providing Organic Food in the Middle of a Seven Year Drought*

Fifteen Foods to Detox Your Body*

How to Get Free Food (and Other P2P Solutions)*

African Women Organize to Reclaim Food Sovereignty*

After Decades of Living in a Food Desert, Locals are Building a $2mn Co-op They Own*

Mineral Deficiency Linked to Every Disease and Sickness*

 

European Parliament Abortion Campaign Seeks to Indoctrinate Children*

European Parliament Abortion Campaign Seeks to Indoctrinate Children*

By Marianna Orlandi

The European Parliament has launched a campaign to promote abortion among the continent’s adolescents.

At a recent interactive conference, “My Body, My Rights”, a campaign entitled “#AllofUs” sought to indoctrinate future European leaders. The Socialist and Democrats’ Progressive Alliance Group and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats organized the event for Europe Group (ALDE), the Greens and European United Left (GUE).

The campaign’s explicit mission is to “mobilize support for the right to access modern contraception and safe & legal abortion” under the auspices of “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights” (SRHR). This event was described as “addressing the challenges related to young adolescents’ sexual and reproductive health.”

The conference claimed to be a “timely opportunity to discuss different strategies aimed at improving young people’s access to information, contraception and advice services, by developing youth-friendly health services, and empowering young people to participate in the decisions that affect their lives.”

This claim referred to the recent reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy by U.S. President Donald Trump, which subtracted millions of dollars from the international pro-abortion industry. It also referred to the multiplication and increased support for pro-life movements and pro-life leaders throughout Europe. The conference agenda stated, “Not only in the U.S., where an ultra-conservative vice president wants to turn back time. Also in Europe we are witnessing a severe conservative backlash in the SRHR area for example in Hungary, Poland, the U.K. and other countries.”

The reference to “youth empowerment” suggested going beyond the already-controversial right of adolescents to access abortion freely and confidentially.

Quoting WHO and its ongoing regional consultation on the development of the European action plan for SRHR 2017-2021, the draft program of the conference mentioned the “importance of investing in a comprehensive and appropriate sexuality education for children available to all age groups.” It reported “the need of including children and adolescents as well as their parents, through an inclusive European policy strategy that embraces the importance of sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

Along with representatives of abortion groups, a few members of the European Parliament took an active part in the conference. These members included Terry Reinkte, a German member of the Green Party, Malin Björk, a Swedish member of the European United Left, and Maria Arena, a Belgian member of the Socialist and Democrats’ Progressive Alliance Group (S&D).

While their presence proves the persistent commitment of the European left to the promotion of abortion as a human right, including among the youth, it is worth noting that each of them sits on the European Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM).

At FEMM’s request, the Directorate-General for Internal Policy of the European Parliament recently published a study on “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights”.

Last week, a young French politician, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, provided pushback saying that abortion cannot be considered a form of “empowerment.” Speaking at the French Parliament, Maréchal-Le Pen condemned a new bill that seeks to limit the French people’s freedom of expression by banning anti-abortion websites. On a personal note, she said that she is happy to be born “an accident.”

Source*

Related Topics:

New U.S. Law Lets Families Sue Doctors to Prevent Dismemberment Abortions*

Trump to end Obama Funding of Foreign Abortions by Sunday, Claims Report*

Abortions Banned in Russian City for 1 Day in memory of Biblical ‘massacre of innocents’*

Abortion Survivor to Congress: ‘I was Born Alive after Being Burned in My Mother’s Womb’*

‘This baby won’t stop breathing!’: Abortionist Strangled Baby Born Alive While Nurses Stood and Watched*

African Woman Schools U.N. Delegate on Why Pushing Abortion is ‘neo-colonialism’*

Poland Debates Banning Abortion After Live Baby Cries Itself to Death*

U.N. Rules That Abortion is a Human Right*

Aborted Baby’s Heart was Beating as the Brain was Harvested*

US Senate to Maintain Funding for Overseas Abortion, Population Reduction*